8 Comments
User's avatar
Robert Litan's avatar

Wow this is great. Required reading of all students ... it's not a book, but like an appetizer they must eat before digging into the main course, the books themselves. Couldn't have been written better.

Expand full comment
Brad DeLong's avatar

:-)

Expand full comment
Rob Nelson's avatar

Leaving aside questions of quality, this strikes me as a compelling explanation for why simulations generated by LLMs are unlikely to ever replace books written by humans.

Expand full comment
Nancy Kirsch's avatar

What a collection of the minds that brought us into the modern era of science, in one place.

Expand full comment
David E Lewis's avatar

Thanks for this.

To lean on William James' apocryphal, "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices," what is reading if not entertaining the ideas presented for a time, some to stay, some to adjust and some to reject.

Aristotle's "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" and Russell's (also likely apocryphal although I remember reading something along these lines) "reading a book in order to refute it is no way to understand it", come to mind as well.

Expand full comment
Philip Koop's avatar

Were Athene's eyes "bright" or were they "grey"? The answer is "both and neither", because glaukopis (γλαυκῶπις) may be translated different ways (my old Lattimore translation of Homer has got both "shining" and "grey" in the span of two verses!) The root of the trouble is that the ancient Greeks, while surely sharing our visual physiology, did not think about colour in the same way that we do, giving relatively more weight to albedo and less to hue, and so their language does not map exactly onto ours. But they wrote for themselves and not for us, so they took for granted a shared worldview and did not trouble to explain themselves explicitly. We may infer what they thought by how their writings refer to each other, but this corpus is limited and there is uncertainty. We may question this corpus as we see fit, but it will always say the same thing. So it is that some people today think that Athene's eyes were a slate blue-green but others think they could just as well have been cornflower blue. There is much about ancient Greek modes of thought that we paper over with retrojection.

The mental distance between me and Brad DeLong is much less than that between me and Platon; we share a language, a culture, and a worldview. Yet it is a difference of degree not of kind. When I read Slouching Towards Utopia and spin up my SubTuring instantiation of Brad DeLong, there really is something of Brad DeLong in it. Certainly I can distinguish it from my SubTuring instantiation of Robert Reich. But I think there is also a lot of me in it; my SubTuring instantiation of Brad DeLong can also be distinguished from someone else's. However much academics might like to talk of "interrogating a text", all such readings are ultimately self-interrogations.

Finally: in so far as Sokrates was wrong, he was doubly wrong, because one can interrogate a painting in exactly - and I do mean exactly - the same way that one can interrogate a text.

Expand full comment
mike harper's avatar

Will Chat GPT become our Machiavelli's library? or Dante's Hell?

Expand full comment
glc's avatar

Ada Palmer also digs into this in Terra Ignota, but takes somewhat more space. Also, time.

Expand full comment